In 1916, as World War I intensified overseas, the United States remained officially neutral under President Woodrow Wilson. Public debate was especially active in major cities such as New York, Chicago, and Boston, where newspapers regularly discussed whether the nation should stay out of the conflict. Within this atmosphere, a proposal began circulating that called for any decision to enter war to be decided by a nationwide public vote.
The idea gained momentum after events like the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania and rising tensions with Germany’s submarine campaign. Supporters argued that if Americans were expected to fight, they should also have the power to decide whether the country went to war. The proposal’s most striking feature required every citizen who voted in favor of war to automatically register as a volunteer for military service, linking political support directly to personal responsibility.
Although widely discussed, the proposal never advanced through Congress. Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., argued that war decisions required speed and confidentiality, conditions they believed a national referendum could not meet. By April 1917, the United States entered World War I without a public vote, influenced by Germany’s renewed submarine warfare and the revelation of the Zimmermann Telegram.
The concept resurfaced in the late 1930s during rising global tensions, most notably through the Ludlow Amendment, which again sought a national referendum on war. It came close to passing in 1938, showing how persistent the idea remained. While none of these proposals became law, they highlight a recurring concern in American history about ensuring that decisions involving war reflect both public will and public accountability.
...
Any of the jewelry pieces my wife creates make great gifts.
You can get them for Valentines Day if you order by Thursday morning.
Click the picture to see what she has available today.
...
...
Just imagine if Lindsay Graham had to fight in every war he wanted others to fight in. The twerpy little turd would change his wimpy little mind in a hurry.
ReplyDeleteThere would be no wars if politicians and bankers had to fight them.
DeleteThis biggest drawback to the proposal would be the elimination of the Australian (secret) ballot. We already have domestic terrorists going after people for their political positions (even if their political position is to not take a position). Otherwise, I really like the idea of put your money where your mouth is. If you vote for increase spending, you should be taxed for it.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I would settle for getting Congress to agree to go to war. You know like the law says it should be done.
ReplyDeleteWe went into Venezuela took one guy out and left the rest of the party in place so now we are back to shooting drug dealer boats in the Caribbean. Shot 1 a couple days ago.
Why did we do the who Maduro kidnapping if we are still shooting boats in the Caribbean? Was Trump under the impression that every other drug dealer in Venezuela was going to stop as soon as Maduro was out of the picture?
how about an IQ test for people voting to go to war. If they cant define a woman then they cant vote but get to go to war. multiple birds one stone...
ReplyDeleteI think a test of candidates would be better
DeleteI signed up during the First Gulf War. My dad served in the Pacific in WWII. We have a duty or we don't. Suspect Heinlein was right in Starship Troopers. Citizenship and voting rights should have a chit in the game.
ReplyDelete